Text Size

Multinational giant GE, of course, was not sitting still. Chairman and CEO Jeffrey Immelt sent out a letter to lawmakers urging them to oppose the Larson amendment.

“This competitive engine program has been included in every House defense authorization and appropriations bill since 1996, and the U.S. and our allies are expected to purchase about 4,000-5,000 JSF aircraft over 30 years,” Immelt said.

In the engine war of 2010, the first showdown will most likely take place Thursday, when the defense authorization bill comes to the House floor.

The battle for an edge in the tanker competition was also in full force this week.

The House version of the defense authorization bill includes a watered-down provision of a bill designed to lock in a victory for Boeing sponsored by Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.).

It requires that the Pentagon receive a report on the impact of illegal subsidies on the Air Force tanker competition before the contract is awarded. That’s a specific reference to a World Trade Organization finding that EADS received improper, anti-competitive subsidies from European governments over the years.

Actually taking those subsidies into account could have the effect of adding as much as $5 million per plane to the cost of any EADS tanker bid.

So on Wednesday, Rep. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.), along with Reps. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.), Rick Larsen (D-Wash.) and Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), were trying to squeeze past the Rules Committee an amendment with the teeth to require the Pentagon to consider the impact of subsidies when buying weapons so it could be included in floor action Thursday.

But it remains controversial.

Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell has said the Pentagon still needs to abide by the rules of the WTO, which restrict members from retaliating unilaterally for trade fouls. “That is the purview of the WTO,” Morrell told Aviation Week. “If we were to do so, we would be in violation of WTO rules and subject to disciplinary action.”

Beyond the legislation, Boeing is spreading talking points among lawmakers that would raise questions about the role of foreign companies in U.S. defense contracting. Among them is a claim that EADS tried to market helicopters to Iran in 2005.

While Boeing heavily outmatches EADS in lobbying muscle — spending $4.1 million so far this year, while EADS has laid out just $750,000 — EADS, which is trying to gain a U.S. foothold with the tanker contract, is fighting back nonetheless.

“Let us be clear. EADS North America and its subsidiaries are not involved in any trade with Iran. The allegations against the company by Boeing are false,” the statement said. “Boeing is spreading what it knows is misinformation, to distract attention from their lack of a tanker.”

And they pointed to this statement from Gates defending the company’s integrity. “We would not have welcomed EADS North America’s participation in this important competition unless they were a company in good standing with the Department of Defense.”

Readers' Comments (13)

While Boeing heavily outmatches EADS in lobbying muscle — spending $4.1 million so far this year

BP spent 15 million last year and they got the Deepwater Horizon drilling permit out of it. With this administration especially, bet on the company with the biggest K-Street footprint. Not to mention that Dicks, the chairman of the House Defense Appropriations committee comes from the state of Washington and is considered Boeing's man.

Larson said the fight to snuff out the alternative engine won’t be easy, going up against the wishes of the committee in charge of the bill and House Minority Leader John Boehner and House Minority Whip Eric Cantor.

This is a bid to buy 2 where 1 will do and to disguise what are essentially government jobs as private sector growth. Not overlooking the fact that the committee is run by Dems, this also seems to run counter to what Republicans claim they stand for on fiscal responsibility and reduced government.

Of course this is about jobs - and paying off the Democrats best buddy, GE. The unasked question in this debate is whether the price per example goes up or stays the same if GE and RR elbow their way into the deal. It seems to me that in our current financial climate the total cost is more important than padding GE's balance sheet.

I understand that GE's Jeffery Immelt has been a good little boy and done as his Democrat media masters have dictated by giving NBC over to them for their propaganda machine and now he wants paid off. He also wants to be paid for participating in lots of other leftist and radical notions too, but that will come with cap and trade. Unspoken is whether GE can continue to prosper in a conservative Republican Congress. That will be an interesting in 2011 - 2012. But will NBC remain as the Democrat - leftist mouth piece if the deal with the new buyers goes through?

It is an unfortunate reality of life that Congress lines up behind bills that favor their constituencies first and the Country second. Whether Boeing gets the contract for the new tanker is more a function of which state has the most pull not whether the deal is good for the country - political parties be damned. What we need is a line item veto and a President with the huevos to use it.

Unspoken is whether GE can continue to prosper in a conservative Republican Congress.

The article explicitly states that Republicans are also defending the bloated GE engine deal, so I'd say it's pretty well spoken. Your second post more accurately identifies this as a pork issue, not a partisan one.

I am mystified by the whole F-35 thing. Yes we need to replace the aging F15's which are no longer in production, and early models of the F-16 and F-18. Replacing, however, can also be a function of updating the current models. The manufacturing lines are already up and running for the Falcon and Super Hornet so we do not have to spend billions retooling and re-engineering.

If the Russians and Chinese had something significantly better than ours then maybe an F-35 would be appropriate. But they don't. Both countries use fourth generation aircraft as their primary fighters. They have a few 5th generation planes but a very few of them and according to everything I read, no intentions of building thousands of them unless they feel the need to counter what we build. We have stealth aircraft which seems to be the biggest selling point for the F-35 - enough anyway for a first strike after our missiles take out their ground based radars and aircraft on the ramps. After that, it is our people against theirs in what would be a seriously lopsided, brief and violent series of air battles.

Ground attack and support are not a requisite of the F-35 except in the Marine version. Someone will of course take exception with what I say here and may provide some additional strengths for the Lightening II. However I doubt they will be able to provide a mission for the plane that cannot be handled well into the future with what we have now.

You are right OSUKWM as far as the F-35 engine goes. My point is whether GE's cache' will be as bright overall when the conservatives/Republicans take over. Notice I didn't say conservative Republicans. Many returning Democrats will be conservative and, I suggest, in larger numbers than we have seen in a long time.

JLF: In a world where people were actually as bitter and partisan as they seem here on the Politico boards, you might be right. However, I would suggest that lawmakers of either party, conservative or otherwise, who represent states with a large GE presence will continue to aggressively protect its corporate interests and push more federal contracts its way. Few except political junkies and idealogues really care about GE's political activity, what they care about is jobs in their home state, above all else. Pork is, and always has been, a bipartisan problem.

I am that political junkie you speak about OSUKWM. In fact I am so political that as often as not I can't abide demagoguing from any quarter. Our country is in dire straights financially. We do not have the luxury of battling our political opponents over our traditional differences. Doing so dooms us as a nation, or so it seems to me. Its too bad Congress doesn't see it that way. I hope that at least one house of Congress goes Republican. A divided Congress may not heal our wounds but at least we can hold off picking at the scabs a little while longer.

I would like to see our contracts go to companies that employ US citizens to build our defense systems within the US. It is a small price to pay to keep the economy stimulated so that it can pay down the deficit. Since it is not a partisan issue as there are members on both sides of the aisle on both sides of the issue.

The most important issue is that we as Americans have failed to keep even a competitive edge in the industry of protecting our country--that is very, very sad. Can we not change this system that fails to encourage industry in our own country by American companies?

I don't much care where the companies are headquartered or where they launch their lobbyists from; I care about the ability of this country to compete for its own services to defend not just our country but those of our allies as well.